| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that reusing focus points for anything other than focus spells would miss the lessons learned from D&D4's failures. It's okay to use a different term even if the under-the-hood mechanic amounts to the same thing.
While I get where you're coming from, I also know a handful of inventor players who are pretty sad about the Remaster given their focus-in-all-but-name mechanic and the general focus point changes.
I thought that it would be pertinent to add in here that bombs no longer deal their splash damage on a failure, or at least they may not. In Player Core bombs are describe with the following.
Alchemical bombs are consumable weapons that deal damage or produce special effects, and they sometimes deal splash damage. You throw a bomb as a ranged Strike. It’s a martial ranged weapon with a range increment of 20 feet and can’t benefit from runes since it’s a consumable. A bomb deals any listed splash damage to the target on a failure, success, or critical success, and to all other creatures within 5 feet of the target on a success or critical success. Add the damage together before applying resistance or weakness, and don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.Notably this isn't the same case in GM core.
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a critical failure, the bomb misses entirely, dealing no damage. Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s resistance or weakness. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.Just thought it may be worth considering as GM core contains other text that wasn't updated and personally this vastly changes the balance/power budget of the bomber alchemist. Especially for triggering weaknesses.
Urgh that seems terrible to me. That was one of the few good things you could do with bombs. Splash damage needs to work on a failure. There are enough martial feats that inflict partial strike damage on a miss. Hardly seems fair.
Urgh that seems terrible to me. That was one of the few good things you could do with bombs. Splash damage needs to work on a failure. There are enough martial feats that inflict partial strike damage on a miss. Hardly seems fair.I thought that it would be pertinent to add in here that bombs no longer deal their splash damage on a failure, or at least they may not. In Player Core bombs are describe with the following.
Alchemical bombs are consumable weapons that deal damage or produce special effects, and they sometimes deal splash damage. You throw a bomb as a ranged Strike. It’s a martial ranged weapon with a range increment of 20 feet and can’t benefit from runes since it’s a consumable. A bomb deals any listed splash damage to the target on a failure, success, or critical success, and to all other creatures within 5 feet of the target on a success or critical success. Add the damage together before applying resistance or weakness, and don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.Notably this isn't the same case in GM core.
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a critical failure, the bomb misses entirely, dealing no damage. Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s resistance or weakness. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.Just thought it may be worth considering as GM core contains other text that wasn't updated and personally this vastly changes the balance/power budget of the bomber alchemist. Especially for triggering weaknesses.
To be clear, splash does still work on a failure, but now is reduced to only splashing the primary target.
I 100% understand the frustration w/ bombs getting a nerf like that, especially now, but IMO that one's very appropriate.
Bomber Alchs have friend-safe Quick Bomber, and can do a 3 Strike turn to hit most of the field in an expanded splash zone doing 18ish on-miss splash damage, per target. At L11, it's 24 dmg per target.
A pure Bomber kinda breaks the concept of "missing" an attack.
And after the Treasure Vault, every foe splashed needs to make a save-or-sick Fort save via Skunk Bombs to avoid basically getting hit with a -1 to level debuff.
So toning down splash one notch like that is significant, but should allow for room for other areas to get cranked up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So toning down splash one notch like that is significant, but should allow for room for other areas to get cranked up
That is not the point. Power balance is not that critical or well tuned anyway.
Splash damage was flavourful and mostly unique. It don't want the alchemist turned into a bland copy of everything else. Things like Splash would be better turned up rather than turned down.
So toning down splash one notch like that is significant, but should allow for room for other areas to get cranked upThat is not the point. Power balance is not that critical or well tuned anyway.
Splash damage was flavorful and mostly unique. It don't want the alchemist turned into a bland copy of everything else. Things like Splash would be better turned up rather than turned down.
I agree splash is a cool thematic mechanic, and that mechanics need to have viable numbers attached to them to be fun.
However, it still needs to answer to /match the basic idea of hits and misses.
If you don't splash the whole room on a miss, then splash damage could very well be doubled.
That would mean bombs would be much better at MAP 0, about even at MAP -5, and definitely worse at MAP -10.
What this does is stop the 3 (or 4 via Haste) Strike spammers from auto-killing encounters with brute bomb quantity, while making bombs *better* for everyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will echo the sentiment that the Alchemist's biggest problem right now, in my opinion, is that the class is stretched so thin by being the most versatile in the game that it doesn't get to shine at anything in particular. Make no mistake, the ability for the Alchemist to branch outside of their research field is a good thing, but right now, their subclass is only a relatively small amount of definitive power that sits on top of a massive consumable-generating engine. In my opinion, the ideal Alchemist is one that should still be versatile, but less so than now, so that they get to shine better at somewhat fewer things, including the alchemical items in their research field.
Beyond addressing the class's lack of focus and early resource problems, I'd also like a lot more quality of life baked into the Alchemist so that it doesn't feel like the player has to go for certain mandatory feats. The Bomber subclass is the worst offender, as feats like Quick Bomber and Calculated Splash are must-picks to properly commit to the research field's playstyle.
Finally, given how Crafting has been updated somewhat, I'd like it for the Alchemist to have a proper relation to the Crafting skill: right now, Quick Alchemy doesn't make use of Crafting at all, and depending on the pace of an adventure, an Alchemist can end up going their whole career without making a single Crafting check. That I think is a bit strange, and I think the class ought to make better use of Crafting for their alchemy, while also benefiting from auto-scaling Crafting proficiency.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the ideal Alchemist is one that should still be versatile, but less so than now, so that they get to shine better at somewhat fewer things, including the alchemical items in their research field.
Making the alchemist less versatile does nothing to fix the problems any specialist alchemist has while just making the generalist (who is still a very middling overall character) worse.
Like idk why not just fix some of the things that are broken about the class instead of trying to come up with ways to make it worse. The class isn't that powerful. You don't need to 'compensate' anything to make it good or have a better play experience.
Sometimes I think people on these boards get too fixated on the idea of equivalent exchange evenw hen something isn't good in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making the alchemist less versatile does nothing to fix the problems any specialist alchemist has while just making the generalist (who is still a very middling overall character) worse.
Like idk why not just fix some of the things that are broken about the class instead of trying to come up with ways to make it worse. The class isn't that powerful. You don't need to 'compensate' anything to make it good or have a better play experience.
Sometimes I think people on these boards get too fixated on the idea of equivalent exchange evenw hen something isn't good in the first place.
I'd say the issue is less that everyone else is wrong, and more that thankfully enough people on these forums have some general concept of balance and how it applies to situations like these. I would also say you've completely missed the point: yes, the Alchemist certainly feels weak, and I'd even go as far as agree that it wouldn't hurt them to give them some freebies and just improve their quality of life. However, straight-up buffing the class until it felt strong would be an absolutely terrible idea, because the class holds an immense amount of hidden power through their excessive versatility. Failing to address that hidden power means dooming the class to never feel as good as it could be and be balanced at the same time. This is why I and others have advocated to trim some (and I do mean only some) of that excessive versatility to produce a class that is still versatile, but in a way that allows for them to feel truly excellent at certain things nonetheless. I would say that that is also a significantly more reasonable expectation to set for the class's imminent remaster than wanting to have one's cake and explode it too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the issue is less that everyone else is wrong
That would be pretty striking (and odd). Thankfully we're only talking about a couple specific people disagreeing with each other though.
"Hidden power" is kind of a vague sentiment though. What specific item or ability of the alchemist do you find overpowered and in need of nerfing? What is "some" versatility? Why would improving the alchemist's proficiency scaling (for instance) break the game if not 'compensated' by other nerfs?
Addressing the core issues with the class (like proficiency, the longevity of certain builds at low levels, or overly punitive mechanics that become unwieldy to use at all) do not dramatically disrupt the power curve in the way the alchemist is effective, while making the alchemist perform and feel (arguably disproportionately the latter, which is a good thing) better when played in specific ways that are currently somewhat struggling. You just don't need to tear down the base class to help low level bombers or mid level mutagenists or whatever.
I would say that that is also a significantly more reasonable expectation to set for the class's imminent remaster than wanting to have one's cake and explode it too.
I mean so far Paizo hasn't really seen fit to use the remaster to meaningfully nerf anyone (Wizards had a slightly rough time of it, though the net negatives are mostly on the lower end and seem more a result of rushed decision making than coordinated intent). So I'm not really sure "how can we make this class worse" really makes sense to be on the table either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Hidden power" is kind of a vague sentiment though. What specific item or ability of the alchemist do you find overpowered and in need of nerfing? What is "some" versatility? Why would improving the alchemist's proficiency scaling (for instance) break the game if not 'compensated' by other nerfs?
I'll be happy to give my take on this, in order:
Addressing the core issues with the class (like proficiency, the longevity of certain builds at low levels, or overly punitive mechanics that become unwieldy to use at all) do not dramatically disrupt the power curve in the way the alchemist is effective, while making the alchemist perform and feel (arguably disproportionately the latter, which is a good thing) better when played in specific ways that are currently somewhat struggling. You just don't need to tear down the base class to help low level bombers or mid level mutagenists or whatever.
The issue is that a low-level Bomber isn't just a low-level Bomber, they're a low-level Bomber on top of an Alchemist. A mid-level Mutagenist is also an Alchemist, and the Alchemist merits mention as almost a separate entity here because the core class can still do a lot of different things even at low to mid levels. I keep mentioning the Wizard, and this is because in my opinion, the Alchemist I think is almost a caster in disguise due to their versatility and resource dependence. The main difference is that in 2e, casters had some of their early versatility trimmed and their low-level resource dependence mitigated by strong cantrips and focus spells, whereas the Alchemist features no such protections or equivalent limitations.
I mean so far Paizo hasn't really seen fit to use the remaster to meaningfully nerf anyone (Wizards had a slightly rough time of it, though the net negatives are mostly on the lower end and seem more a result of rushed decision making than coordinated intent). So I'm not really sure "how can we make this class worse" really makes sense to be on the table either.
I'm not really sure either, which is why it's a good thing nobody here is advocating to nerf the Alchemist. You yourself acknowledged that I was following some principle of equivalent exchange here, so trying to reframe that as a pure intent to nerf the class is disingenuous, especially after I also agreed that there's likely room to improve the class's quality of life without taking anything away there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will echo the sentiment that the Alchemist's biggest problem right now, in my opinion, is that the class is stretched so thin by being the most versatile in the game that it doesn't get to shine at anything in particular. Make no mistake, the ability for the Alchemist to branch outside of their research field is a good thing, but right now, their subclass is only a relatively small amount of definitive power that sits on top of a massive consumable-generating engine. In my opinion, the ideal Alchemist is one that should still be versatile, but less so than now, so that they get to shine better at somewhat fewer things, including the alchemical items in their research field.
Beyond addressing the class's lack of focus and early resource problems, I'd also like a lot more quality of life baked into the Alchemist so that it doesn't feel like the player has to go for certain mandatory feats. The Bomber subclass is the worst offender, as feats like Quick Bomber and Calculated Splash are must-picks to properly commit to the research field's playstyle.
Finally, given how Crafting has been updated somewhat, I'd like it for the Alchemist to have a proper relation to the Crafting skill: right now, Quick Alchemy doesn't make use of Crafting at all, and depending on the pace of an adventure, an Alchemist can end up going their whole career without making a single Crafting check. That I think is a bit strange, and I think the class ought to make better use of Crafting for their alchemy, while also benefiting from auto-scaling Crafting proficiency.
So, you entered a point where I found it interesting.
Leaving aside the idea of weakening the alchemist's versatility, in fact one thing I've noticed for some time is that Paizo's designers consider versatility to be equivalent to power (not just in alchemists, they do this with other classes as well), However, a large part of the community tends to disagree with this.In the case of the alchemist specifically, the feeling I have was that it was built with 3 premises:
But based on these premises, for a large part of players, the alchemist ended up being a good-for-nothing class, especially because for many of us versatility is not as impactful as it is for designers and that is where a good part of the complaints come from.
The alchemist tries to compensate a little for this problem of being excessively a jack-of-all-trades who does everything, but leaves something to be desired in everything, trying to specialize a little using the Research Fields, although these despite providing notable abilities and Perpetual Infusions are not enough to compensate for the feeling that in the end, you are subpar even in what you specialize in.
If I understood correctly, the idea of Teridax would be something closer to what was done with Kineticist, which also has great versatility, but which was built in such a way that when you specialize in an element you gain a good benefit (Junctions) and which gives a feeling that his specialization is much more significant at the cost of his versatility being more limited.
Having said all that, I agree with Squiggit, the alchemist is not in a situation where she needs compensation, and it also won't drastically change how it works because PC1 has already shown that although the remaster has no limits on how much it changes, the Designers chose not to change the fundamentals of any class, and reducing the alchemist's versatility would mean changing its fundamentals.
What can actually be done are improvements to Research Fields to make specialist alchemists more powerful and relevant, as well as reducing the must have of some feats, for example, the Bomber could incorporate Calculated Splash and Expanded Splash within its subclass chassis reducing the need to buy these feats and to compensate for the fact that bombs are not as strong as weapons with property runes, also give to it 1 or 2 precision damage dice when using bombs; The chirurgeon could receive Healing Bomb without frequency and trigger restrictions allowing it to throw up to 3 elixirs of life of the alchemist's maximum level (if it also has Quick Bomber) to partially compensate for the fact that a magical healer can heal 3x more with 2-actions distance using a single resource. And so on.
Another thing I think could be done would be to reduce the level of Perpetual Infusions to 3, this would help and reduce the difficulty of having few resources at low levels and make it on par with the other Perpetual abilities.
And of-course add Master weapon proficiencies at level 15 to keep it relevant at high levels.
These are changes that can be made in the remaster and none of them need to change the alchemist's basic versatility.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, my question is, do people want the alchemist to be a martial? Because thinking critically about what the class gives and does not give, I do not think that is the intended role of the alchemist's design (please note, this is purely my opinion and conjecture, not a definitive statement). I think it is meant to be a spell less caster, and damn near satisfied me as a pseudo kineticist. Honestly I prefer it to the kineticist in some ways, not least because it is far simpler in design. But whatever the intention was, the real intent was "make a class that's fun to play" and I think it falls short in several ways.
-Party dependent - They have to be willing to use their actions to make you useful.
-Action cost - Action costs are a bit too high for the impact of their effects
-(related) Lack of Oomph - As Yuri points out, alchemy items usually have low impact for their level, making big moments for the class harder to acheive
-Chip damage as a major damage component - I like this, and have advocated it more than once, but I am clearly in the minority on this.
-Resource hog - particularly at low levels with no "cantrip" like abilities to fill in the gap
-Splash - it's weird. Less weird now, but still.
-Melee dependent - if I'm right and the alchemist was intended to be a front line caster, then it is far more reliant on melee strikes and doing interact actions while in melee than it really should be.
-Bad at firearms - canonically, they invented firearms. And they are quite possibly the single worst class at actually using the damn things. Wizards can beat them now.
These are all solvable problems, and re-tuning the class to be a martial would admittedly solve most of them. But still, I would not prefer that. I like the intention of the class as is, and want the designers to make the vending machine interesting to play, whatever that takes. I have ideas, and have posted them elsewhere, but as most are directly opposed to the direction most of you want I won't derail by going over them again.
I will say that I would still love to see an alchemist martial designed from the ground up, which would probably incorporate many of the things people have asked for in this thread. We see some of it on the gunslinger and investigator (and the thaumaturge gives me ideas too), but I want alchemy use to be centered, not options. Something like a bound caster, but using alchemy.
If I understood correctly, the idea of Teridax would be something closer to what was done with Kineticist, which also has great versatility, but which was built in such a way that when you specialize in an element you gain a good benefit (Junctions) and which gives a feeling that his specialization is much more significant at the cost of his versatility being more limited.
While I agree with the larger assessment of the Alchemist's problems, I would like to correct the above statement by pointing out I would like the Alchemist to have versatility comparable to that of a caster, not the Kineticist. The Kineticist, while more versatile than most martial classes, is also far more constrained than most casters. Crucially, Kineticists are locked to a limited number of elements, and I don't think applying that same framework to Alchemists would appeal to the players who enjoy being able to craft a little bit of everything (and I think those players are worth listening to).
To be clear, my position is that right now, the Alchemist is genuinely the most versatile class in the game, and as such is more versatile than even the most versatile caster. Consequently, their raw power is also more diluted than that of the game's most versatile caster. By advocating to reduce the Alchemist's versatility, I'm not talking about turning them into a typical martial class or even the Kineticist, I'm talking about bringing their versatility in line with that of casters (and even then, more someone like the Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard than the Psychic), which would then afford them significantly more raw power. Beyond that, the Alchemist could certainly use some QoL improvements without tradeoffs, but I do think there is such a thing as too much versatility, and the Alchemist I think suffers from that exact problem at the moment.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, my question is, do people want the alchemist to be a martial? Because thinking critically about what the class gives and does not give, I do not think that is the intended role of the alchemist's design (please note, this is purely my opinion and conjecture, not a definitive statement).
To me, the main thing is that it needs to pick a lane. It's either low impact, highly efficient action economy with the current paradigm of "Strike+" on bombs and other class enhancements, like martial classes with their low impact but at will abilities and action efficiency. Or they can go with high impact per actions spent, which is the way spells work, specially at mid to high levels.
Right now, Alchemists sit somewhere in the middle. However, they are not action efficient at all. Their gimmick is not unique. Their feats are not mechanically interesting, flavorful or inspiring in the least.
Everybody can say what they want about Swashbucklers, Witches (old ones), Oracles and Investigators, the classes that suffered the most from over-conservative design of early PF2e, about their weak mechanical state and flaws, but you can't deny that each of them have strong identities, flavorful feats (except old Witch) and they can have their moments to shine.
Alchemists on the other hand? They're item dispensers. Regardless of your character concept. If you're not crafting a bunch of items and giving them to your teammates and begging them to spend their precious items to use, you're not using the alchemist right*. That's a major issue in my eyes.
*According to most alchemist fans that still keep defending the class despite multiple errata showing they've never been in a good spot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the "you must be handing out your items" crowd.
I have no objections to handing out a few things. It can be very effective, depending on your team. I have fond memories of how much a +2 Dex Sorcerer enjoyed Drakeheart one game. But there are limits. There are only so many Batches in a day, you know?
I mean, if you want to play Toxicologist and poison every piercing/slashing weapon before every fight, go for it! If that works for you, fantastic. If 4 weapon strikes are poisoned, two of them should get to Stage 1. Awesome!
However, if you're playing a Bomber in the lower levels, well, go ahead and load up on Bombs and Quicksilver. You're going to do respectable damage and have fun in the process. Helping out other folks can come later.
Best Research Field for playing with the toolkit, including helping out folks, is Mutagenist in my opinion. Only need 1 Batch/three doses of your Combat Mutatagen to get through the day, really (Mutagenic Flashback can be Encounter #4) and that leaves a lot of room to experiment. A 1st level Mutagenist can easily have 6 Batches of Infused Reagents a day, and only have the use of 1 set in stone (Int +4 & Alchemical Familiar.)
I've never understood the "you must be handing out your items" crowd.
I have no objections to handing out a few things. It can be very effective, depending on your team. I have fond memories of how much a +2 Dex Sorcerer enjoyed Drakeheart one game. But there are limits. There are only so many Batches in a day, you know?
I mean, if you want to play Toxicologist and poison every piercing/slashing weapon before every fight, go for it! If that works for you, fantastic. If 4 weapon strikes are poisoned, two of them should get to Stage 1. Awesome!
However, if you're playing a Bomber in the lower levels, well, go ahead and load up on Bombs and Quicksilver. You're going to do respectable damage and have fun in the process. Helping out other folks can come later.
Best Research Field for playing with the toolkit, including helping out folks, is Mutagenist in my opinion. Only need 1 Batch/three doses of your Combat Mutatagen to get through the day, really (Mutagenic Flashback can be Encounter #4) and that leaves a lot of room to experiment. A 1st level Mutagenist can easily have 6 Batches of Infused Reagents a day, and only have the use of 1 set in stone (Int +4 & Alchemical Familiar.)
I just mentioned the playstyle because that's what every single person I've seen claiming the alchemist was "fine as is" used as an argument why they were doing fine with the class and why others "didn't know how to play it properly". Missing completely the point that it's not about "knowing" (as if just making a list of useful items is that hard) how to play the class "properly", it's about the class being able to realize multiple character concepts mechanically and with the flavor players want. Like every single class in the game. Do other classes enable every flavor possible? No, but they do offer many concepts within their niche.
Overall, being truthful, I think the class feats and research fields could remain largely as they are right now and the class would be good as long as it hard a jacked up chassis like Fighters and Rogues have. Give it good proficiency, auto-scaling in Crafting, more class features (I can't see why we need Far Lobber or Alchemical Savant, for example, as class options), extra feats and a unique quick draw action and this would go a long way in offsetting the lack of flavorful and mechanically impactful feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I would argue that Alchemists are largely "fine as is" any day, but item dispenser has never been my playstyle, other than one memorable final battle in one Scenario.
That battle was going to be triggered when the folks we were helping performed a Ritual. We knew where it would take place, and we got to dictate when it would take place, and we knew it was the final encounter. Let me tell you, that set of circumstances is rare.
My Mutagenist went all-in on Advanced Alchemy that day, and everyone was on something for that fight, even if it was just a Mistform Elixir. It was fun, as a one-off.
As far as the Remaster goes: I think there's definitely space to rejig the Feats a bit. I'd love to see Alchemical Savant be a Class Feature for example. I'd love to have that on my Alchemists, but while I'm not exactly a min/maxer, I can't see myself ever taking it over Alchemical Familiar or one of the Bomb Feats.
I know a lot of people consider the Bomb Feats taxes, and I can see that perspective, but I don't know how you could do things otherwise. My Mutagenist doesn't use Bombs. I don't want Class Features based around Bombs, because that's essentially telling me that I should always be using Bombs... and that's not my character.
I know there is a School of Thought that the Research Field should do more, but I don't think that matches my expectations. I mean, a Ranger's choice of Edge doesn't make them better with any particular weapon, right? You choose Feats for that.
I hope they redo the Mutagen Feats a bit. Elastic Mutagen is interesting, but I can't see there being many people who take it. Invincible Mutagen is good (you can have a +5 Int when it comes in) but Juggernaut's Drawback is the hardest one on an Alchemist and since Mutagenists don't get past the one Mutagen limit until 13th that's irritating. Plus, Invincible competes with Extend Elixir which is one of the best Alchemist Feats in the game.
Gilb and Genius are Feats that largely influence out of combat, and those are always a tough sell.
Anyways, I'm rambling again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know there is a School of Thought that the Research Field should do more, but I don't think that matches my expectations. I mean, a Ranger's choice of Edge doesn't make them better with any particular weapon, right? You choose Feats for that.
A Ranger's choice of edge may not necessarily define their weapon selection, but it will have a radical impact on their playstyle: a Flurry Ranger will be building and fighting markedly differently from an Outwit Ranger, for instance. I wouldn't like the Alchemist's research field to lock their item selection either, though I do think there is room for their subclass to have a bigger impact on their gameplay, if only by giving earlier access to some freely-crafted items.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the "you must be handing out your items" crowd.
That comes from alch items being worse than whatever they are imitating. If the item effect needs 2 Actions (from a Draw, ect) then it's usually not worth the actions, and in addition to the complexity issue of the non-Alch ally needing to think about alchemy, it's likely better from a math/survival standpoint to just do their combat routine and ignore whatever the alch is trying to get them to use.
But.
For 1 Action, most of the alch-alternative items are actually good.
And a lot of classes/setups have a hand free at the start of combat. This could be filled with an alch item to chug for 1 Action.
Elixirs of Life do get shafted with how good Medic / Battle Med are, but the elixirs can still get use once that's on CD.
----------
Bomber Alchemists are the only sub-class where their items are better in their hands*
Being able to throw a [ _d8 + splash + persistent ] fire bomb for 1-action is genuinely a great Strike, as long as it's 1 Action.
That "outright good" value of actions is not normal for the other Alchemists. Even when invested, their primary items are a bad use of actions in combat*
For Alchemists that don't throw bombs as their first priority combat option, we are used to trying to get allies to hold/use our items as a means to try to get the item use down from 2 and into that 1 Action usable zone.
That said, even as a Chiurgeon, a 1-Action Alchemist's Fire is still my best combat option, period. This is... actually kinda really bad, as a design outcome. In theory my investment into Chiurgeon should result in a non-bomb being optimal by L9, but it's not even close.
My bombing is inferior to a real Bomber (that dang exclusive splash optional passive matters a whole lot) but that lack of Bomber investment just shows how much power is built into the item itself and Quick Bomber.
Instead, my Chiurgeon investment means... I can dump WIS & Medicine while still spending Alchemists Feats on Medic.
Just think about that, lol. Alchemist is so bad, the real perk of being the "good Dr." variant literally just lets you leave the Alchemist class for a Dedication that genuinely improves your combat actions.
Elixirs, even the Numbing Tonic, are not bombs. They are not a genuinely good action that you *want* to deck out and expend. You need work to make them not a waste of an action(s), and for me that's getting a hand-off from an Independent familiar every 2nd turn for the 1-action feed (after Bttl Md is on CD).
The free 1d6 healing every 10min has never once been relevant.
-----------
Where I'm trying to go with this:
When discussing Alchemist balance and changes, it's important to remember that bombs are the only alch items that are genuinely good on their own, without need to perfectly fit an unlikely scenario, be enhanced with Feats, ect.
Again, I'll mention that issue of L9 Crackling Bubble Gum doing Electric Arc damage in an friend-unsafe cone, with a spd slow on fail rider. The stars really have to align for non-bomb options to be worth the actions + resources.
This is where a whole lot seemingly hard to understand takes come from, such as the "handing out items" alchemists.
Not to mention that by design, the Lozenge trait means that an Alch can't "feed to use" the items upon their allies anymore, the receiver must actively interact/bite them.
It's a brilliant bit of design to limit potential abuse of the items to enable some more potent power. But Paizo still made them unusably weak.
|
New Alchemist Class Ability: Lighting Hands [Level 1]
An Alchemist possesses the remarkable ability to seamlessly access and retrieve stored items, weapons, and alchemical concoctions with unparalleled speed and precision. Through a combination of meticulous organization, heightened spatial awareness, and a profound understanding of their inventory, they effortlessly navigate their packs and person, ensuring swift access to the exact tools needed for any alchemical or combat situation.
The Alchemist can Interact to Draw or Swap gear from their person such as an Alchemical Item, Weapon, Potion, or any other 1-handed item as part of the same Action they use or Activate it. For the purpose of requirements and prerequisites this ability counts as the Quick Draw Class Feat.
New Alchemist Class Ability: Lighting Hands [Level 1]
An Alchemist possesses the remarkable ability to seamlessly access and retrieve stored items, weapons, and alchemical concoctions with unparalleled speed and precision. Through a combination of meticulous organization, heightened spatial awareness, and a profound understanding of their inventory, they effortlessly navigate their packs and person, ensuring swift access to the exact tools needed for any alchemical or combat situation.
The Alchemist can Interact to Draw or Swap gear from their person such as an Alchemical Item, Weapon, Potion, or any other 1-handed item as part of the same Action they use or Activate it. For the purpose of requirements and prerequisites this ability counts as the Quick Draw Class Feat.
What do you think about this alternative?
Knuckle Pinch:
Countless hours of tending to rows of vials has left you with the ability to hold and use multiple delicate items without issue. So long as they are of L or lower bulk, you can now hold 2 items in each hand. Whenever you Draw, Swap, or otherwise add an item of L bulk to your hand, you can fill one or both hands to their maximum.
When you are an Expert in Alchemy, this increases to 3, to 4 at Master, and to 5 at Legendary.
---------------------------
IMO, Quick Bomber is literally the strongest feat / feature in the entire Alchemist Class, and it's a super boring action skipper.
This variant would still be crazy good for action economy, while still mandating one engage with the concept of Draw and hands.
At L1, a two-handed Bomber could walk into battle w/ 4 bombs at the ready, and per each single Draw, could "reload" 4 more. While no longer free, one Draw is still enough for most fights. If, the Bomber is only draw/using bombs, of course. Maybe they think 2 capacity + shield is better idea? Or maybe they want to carry 2 bombs + 2 different mutagens to option-select between?
IMO this sort of dynamic is more fun than an action skipper.
You would get scenarios like:
the fire-Bomber turning the corner --> uh-oh it's a ghost --> 1 action to stash and exchange all 4 bombs for ghost charges
VS
the fire-Bomber turning the corner --> uh-oh it's a ghost --> 0 difference, all bombs are on belt, not in hand
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, the alchemist needs to be clearly better at using all of his alchemical items than anyone else, including those with the alchemist archetype. This is the basics for the alchemist to stop being a portable grocery.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, the alchemist needs to be clearly better at using all of his alchemical items than anyone else, including those with the alchemist archetype. This is the basics for the alchemist to stop being a portable grocery.
Sounds like getting the benefit from the level just above for items you crafted (ie getting the benefit of Moderate when you use the Lesser version) could do the trick.
|
|
I really hope Paizo just shows us what they're planning to do with Alchemist (or even a few options) and is open to feedback on it before sending this stuff off to be printed. June isn't that far off and Alchemist desperately needs some love to not feel like garbage.
They did not do this for Witch or Warpriest, yet the fans were not disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, warpriest didn't get nowhere near what witch, oracle, champion, and alchemists are going to get or already got. Literally the only change they made to warpriest is expert proficiency with martial weapons at 7th level. The rest are are just feats.
...but that ain't a warpriest change. That's a cleric change in general.
I don't disagree the feats make the warpriest significantly better (though if you have read my earlier comment you'll know I think it still is one step below what it really should) but that still isn't nowhere near a remake / remaster of the class.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope Paizo just shows us what they're planning to do with Alchemist (or even a few options) and is open to feedback on it before sending this stuff off to be printed. June isn't that far off and Alchemist desperately needs some love to not feel like garbage.
It takes too long. Cost too much. They are professional designers. Lets see what they come up with. Mostly they have been pretty good.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope Paizo just shows us what they're planning to do with Alchemist (or even a few options) and is open to feedback on it before sending this stuff off to be printed. June isn't that far off and Alchemist desperately needs some love to not feel like garbage.It takes too long. Cost too much. They are professional designers. Lets see what they come up with. Mostly they have been pretty good.Professional designers who failed to deliver on the class fantasy for many in the community in core, errata 1, errata 2, errata 3, errata 4, and all the supplements heralded as 'fixing the class' like TV. Turns out humans aren't perfect and don't 'create' perfect things. The insistence of this community that whatever Paizo will create will be great is not healthy. For example, while the warpriest was buffed in remaster it failed to deliver on what I want from my warpriest (i.e., a bounded caster chassis divine PC). As a contrary example, they went overly conservative on the leshy seedpod range when they errata'd it to fix the issue that it didn't have a listed range (10ft instead of 30ft like the bestiary and as the community argued for) and NOW in the remaster they finally made it 30ft. So they have made mistakes and have/have not fixed them in the remaster (who knows what we'll get for this class).
It is already too late to effect something being published in June. One of the first threads I posted after the remaster announcement was will they have a playtest or any kind of formal/informal community involvement. Feel free to go read the brow beating I got for 'daring to ask' if we would have community involvement. Between that post and a follow-up post here, James Jacob has said:
...
You can think of everyone playing the game for the past 4 years as the
Calm down there!
I agree that there is a certain deification for the work of Paizo designers, especially in these forums, by the Pathfinder community (which by the way has improved a lot in the first year of the game, any criticism was almost hostile received by a good part of the community ).
I also agree that there is a disagreement of design decisions by a part of the community that would like several decisions was different. Which is normal and expected in any game.
Now this to declare incompetence on the part of designers, which is what was understood to me in your answer, it is too far away, because if it was the case we would not even be arguing, the game would simply have been a flop, which it wasn't.
And going to the specific case of the alchemist, warpriest and the remaster and etc. What we have is not a case of incompetence, but of vision divergence. What you, and part of the community wanted for the class is different from what the designers wanted with the same class. What the designers wanted was to make all-round classes that they didn't fall into the CoDzilla problem, something that almost everyone agrees, but while the designer chose to leave these super versatile classes at the cost of reducing their power and efficiency in each area, to thus prevent them from overshadowing other more specific classes, many community members preferred to be part of this versatility to be sacrificed in place of a specialization that provided a greater power for a specific role in competitible with that of other classes.
But it is not incompetence, but you who want something different from which the class was designed to do.
This is an important factor, because none of the erratas, nor does the remaster actually try to change the base design of any of the classes, precisely to prevent any of them change so significantly any of the classes to the point that this breaks someone's build who is already playing and likes the class.
The other criticism I do is what the community expects from the remaster, what the Paizo proposes to deliver, and the pessimal choice of names and expectations about the PF1.
I say this because a lot of older people when saw warpriest's subclass imagined that he would be a substitute for the PF1 warpriest, which it is not. The warpriest of PF2 is nothing more than subclass to meet what cleric is in D&D/PF1, a divine armored caster that provides support for the front line and not a hybrid martial like the PF1 warpriest, and determined the role of the cloistered (which by the way is also a horrible name in my opinion) as a more a glass cannon version of the class, with less defensive power, but greater offensive magic power serving like a white mage role. Probably if the choice of names had been better, most of the discussions for expectations would not occur.
That said, let's go back to the topic. First the alchemist will not change fundamentally, for as I said earlier, the remaster does not propose to conceptually change any class, it is not an unleashed. What it will receive are adjustments to still in the strict class role, to be able to operate a little better as extremely versatile class, able to play a little better to what it proposes to do (as I said before, for me one of the great problems of the alchemist is that it is not good enough with your own alchemical items and this is what often plays it in the role of portable grocery, because today it is more interesting for an alchemist to deliver its elixirs and poisons to the allies than it itself use, besides the damage of alchemical bombs is very little efficient, even for an all-round class, and I believe that both aspects of the alchemist need to be improved and the addition of master proficiency to the attacks would already be a great change in this direction, but I think it would still be too little, it also needs other adjustments to make it more efficient at lower levels as well, such as giving access to perpetual infusions earlier or even normalizing its progression of its proficiency to a specialist such as rogue and inventor).
So first, hold your expectations, leave your desires of what would be the ideal alchemist aside, because they will not be met, and if they focus more on the small adjustments that would make the current alchemist much more interesting and useful.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope Paizo just shows us what they're planning to do with Alchemist (or even a few options) and is open to feedback on it before sending this stuff off to be printed. June isn't that far off and Alchemist desperately needs some love to not feel like garbage.
They've already made their position on this matter clear. They've had a significant number of years of "playtest" on the current alchemist, with data of far better quality than they could get from throwing something together now.
Turns out humans aren't perfect and don't 'create' perfect things. The insistence of this community that whatever Paizo will create will be great is not healthy. For example, while the warpriest was buffed in remaster it failed to deliver on what I want from my warpriest (i.e., a bounded caster chassis divine PC).
I just want to note here how you basically said "Everyone claims that the stuff they make is great, but it's totally not. Look! They didn't give me the very specific thing that I personally wanted." Well, it's true. They didn't. That doesn't mean that the results weren't good, of weren't an improvement, or won't result in a bunch of people having more fun at the table. It just means that they didn't fit in your personal preferences this particular time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, speaking of "the class fantasy" when it comes to the Alchemist is a bit of a stretch. Prior to PF1, Alchemist was not a thing at all. And PF1 Alchemist is notoriously overpowered (and I can tell from experience) which allows it to embody more fantasies than it should.
If you base yourself on the description of the Alchemist, the class is pretty much delivering the fantasy (it's mostly speaking of tinkering with
a great number of alchemical items).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, thank you Yuri for saying all that. I wanted to chime in with much the same thoughts, but was afraid that I would come off as peeing in everyone's cheerios.
Because I have to agree, none of the remasters so far fundamentally changed the design intent of any of the classes, just more fully enabled the intended playstyles. So I don't think the alchemist will wind up, after remaster, as a class that pulls stupidly powerful tricks out of its alchemy bag, but instead will still be the class that is extremely efficient at crafting alchemical items at little to no cost (either time or gold), as well as being a general multitool and vending machine.
Which is why I keep suggesting we have another class that uses alchemy. I don't think there's any reason why they couldn't make a class that makes alchemical items that rival a spell of the same relative level, I just don't expect it to happen on the alchemist.
I'd love to be proven wrong on that, of course. There's 10 abilities on the alchemist chassis; 7 of which make crafting alchemical items from your reagents more efficient, and 3 increase the power or utility of those same items. Reverse that ratio, and I think there would be quite a few players made a lot happier, and it might not require as many new words or time as more comprehensive redesign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master bombs, buff item effects when used by the Alchemist. Don't restrict their ability to hand out items. Like the system is so ripe to make Alchemist good but the biggest thing is they are as versatile as spell-casters can be and that is fine but they need to specialize in using their own items or items of other alchemists first and then they can hand out items to help the party.
Elixir of Life now heal, a flat-bonus equal to Level + Int mod when applied by an Alchemist instead of any other class. Boom, just one step to making them more useful.
Bombs now gain +1 dice grade and deal bonus damage equal to Int mod. This is added to the total damage, including splash damage but this only triggers once per target. These minor things would make a Alchemist a specialist in items which is what they should be by default.
Not, only alchemists can do this, no alchemists get better at doing this compared to all other classes!
Why does it need to be a choice and not just, a think they can do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got the time over the holidays, and decided to just go for it and make an "Alchemist: Reformulated" full overhaul of the class. I'm about halfway through atm. This isn't throwaway homebrew, and I'm def going to look around for 3rd party publishing options, especially if the Remaster does not fix Alch's core problems.
Main conceit of this re-do is that of the Alchemist's "Reservoir of Quintessence" which is the source of daily infused reagents, is the new 10-min recharging Quick Alchemy instant items, and more. Doing that's enabled more simplification than I expected. Stuff like old L7 Perpetual Infusions now is "Bottomless Reservoirs" and L-6 items can be drawn continuously. Oh, and all Additives are compatible w/ Advanced Alchemy, so you don't have to butcher your reagents & action economy to get those little boosts.
Taking a cues from Kineticist, a whole lot of interesting/exciting stuff is moved into the Research Fields, but for now, here's the tease blurb on the reservoirs. Note that without Feats to expand it, you cannot insta-make anything in the book anymore (reduced cognitive load), you start limited to your Research Field's one trait, and need to out-of-combat prep off-Field items (which is no longer only @ daily prep.)
Whether it is tubed directly to your vein and vitae, or intangibly linked with the aeon stone you wear on your forehead, this signature vessel you carry whorls with unfinished creation. You are able to freely prepare a single Reservoir that is aligned around the core trait specified in your Research Field.
While worn, reservoirs slowly refill for reuse over 10 minutes as they leech your quintessence, with no need to attend them.
Siphoning the Reservoir to create an item is a Draw action, which may be done as a free action with the flourish trait, or for 1 action.
Upon being drained, the essence immediately manifests as any infused, consumable alchemical item eligible for your Advanced Alchemy and possesses the Reservoir’s aligned trait. While the selected item is still limited by your Advanced Alchemy level, the resulting item level will be your alchemy level + class proficiency bonus (+2 for trained, +4 for expert, ect), which enables potent creations via Additives.As with all your infused items, any reference to saving throws in the created item may be replaced with your Class DC.
In exchange for the immediacy of their creation, these instant items loose potency and dissolve at the end of the Alchemist’s next turn, even when held in-hand.Each day, you are able to extract your own unrealized potential from the Reservoir and blend it with quintessence harvested from the surrounding world. This creates infused reagents of significant stability, and utilizing them for item creation is Advanced Alchemy.
Instead of readying 2 infused reagents each, you may allocate the effort to instead create additional Reservoirs that match your Reservoir’s trait and functionality.
Aside from the Reservoir, there's "cantrip" L0 items and Additives for each Field that add a lot of depth. Double Brew is instead Second Additive, which is when possibilities really multiply. The rest is more minor changes and Feat tweaks.
One more lil teaser is a neat Feat chain for "Throwing Arm" (old Far Lobber) --> "Item Toss," Which lets you risk a miss to Strike at squares (throwable Smokesticks, ect) or throw to use items upon allies at a distance.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because then it's part of their power budget and not every group enjoys having that mental burden around. If you don't use that part of the power budget, it's wasted. Or at least it'll feel wasted for the alchemist player. Which leads to the alchemist begging others to use their stuff so they're playing optimally.
You could still pass items to the group by crafting some, since an alchemist should be really good at crafting. At least then it won't be a constant stress on the party since it would require downtime and money to perform, and you could ask the party if they'd like such items, instead of being forced to hand them items because you crafted a crapton of stuff with reagents for free automatically each day.
The way I'm handling this is that at base, Advanced Alch infused items decay when not being attended/carried by the Alchemist.
One Feat to extend the timer to a minute for Advanced (hand out before a fight), +1 turn for the instant items.
One more Feat to instead make it a 100ft range from the Alchemist before the timer even starts for the stable infused, and a full 1 min for the instant items.
So there's no way to "opt out" and gain more potency. Instead, all infused can get Additives, and are therefore stronger, while anyone who wants to not just use items on allies, but hand them out during exploration is able to spend a Feat or two for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly if the Alchemist isn't able to be the dedicated bomber class, we should just have one, separately. Master bombs on the martial track.
I had a wild thought that an inventor innovation might work.
Certainly explosives, chemicals, and explosive chemicals should be right in that wheelhouse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly if the Alchemist isn't able to be the dedicated bomber class, we should just have one, separately. Master bombs on the martial track.I had a wild thought that an inventor innovation might work.
Certainly explosives, chemicals, and explosive chemicals should be right in that wheelhouse.
Yeah kind of. Ironically two really common issues I run into are players wishing they could play an alchemist more like an inventor and players wishing they could play an inventor more like an alchemist.
It's sort of unfortunate the classes are as similar as they are but still different enough that they can't scratch that thematic overlap itch.
Honestly if the Alchemist isn't able to be the dedicated bomber class, we should just have one, separately. Master bombs on the martial track. Can only make bombs with quick alchemy, but one infused reagents makes two bombs (if you have hands). A level 0 bomb for perpetual use from level 1. And all the additives, of course.
Just want to point out class archetypes exist. Yeah I know they kind of have been hit or miss so far, but there is a strong case for giving a few to the alchemist that enable them to get more of a martial proficiency chasis in exchange for say...a restricted selection when using advanced/quick alchemy.